Contentment and suffering: the impact of
Australia's housing policy and tenure on older
Australians.

Abstract:

Housing policy in Australia historically has focused on
facilitating homeownership and creating some buffer for those households
that are not homeowners. This paper explores the implications of this
policy for older Australians. What is argued is that housing tenure has
become a crucial divide and that older Australians who have not had the
good fortune to access homeownership or public / community housing and
who are dependent on the private rental sector as a result, often find
themselves in desperate circumstances. The argument is developed that
the failure to put in place a housing policy which would give all
citizens the ability to access adequate and affordable housing, has led
to a situation where a substantial and increasing number of older
Australians have untenable housing costs and minimal disposal income.
The article concludes that the present policy initiatives aimed at
addressing the housing affordability crisis will have little impact on
the situation of older people who are currently in housing stress.

Name: Australian Journal of Social Issues Publisher: Australian Council of Social Service Audience: Academic Format: Magazine/Journal Subject: Sociology and social work Copyright: COPYRIGHT 2009 Australian Council of Social
Service ISSN:0157-6321

Post World War Two the housing policy of successive Australian
governments has focused on facilitating the expansion of homeownership
(Kendig & Bridge 2007; Paris 1993). This policy has enabled a large
proportion of older Australians to acquire their own homes and in
mid-2006, 72.5 per cent of older Australians (65 and over), owned their
home (about 90 per cent of owners did not have a mortgage); 7.2 per cent
were dependent on the private rental market and only 4.1 per cent were
public housing tenants (ABS 2008). Noteworthy, is that the proportion of
older Australians in the public housing sector dropped from 5.3 per cent
in 1991 to 4.4 per cent in 2001 and to 4.1 per cent in 2006, whereas the
proportion in the private rental market went up from 6.2 percent in 1991
to 7.1 percent in 2001 and to 7.2 per cent in 2006 (ABS 2008; AIHW
2007). This trend is set to continue. Jones et al (2007: 39) estimate
that the number of older, low-income renters will increase substantially
- from 195,000 in 2004 to 419,000 in 2026 and that the bulk will be
accommodated in the private rental market if the present policy trends
continue. The serious shortage of public housing and the crisis around
housing affordability suggest that Jones et al's estimate could be
conservative.

The dwindling supply of public housing and the explicit policy of
prioritising public housing applicants with complex needs are making it
very difficult for older people to access public housing. In New South
Wales, older people dependent on the age pension, 'may be approved
for housing assistance as an elderly client' only when they turn
eighty and if they are Indigenous Australians, when they turn 55 (New
South Wales Government 2006). Between 1995 and 2005 the number of public
housing dwellings decreased from about 388,000 dwellings to 335,000
(AIHW 2005; McIntosh 1997). The Australian Council of Social Service
(ACOSS) calculated that in real terms, using 2000-1 dollars, funding for
the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA), the fund responsible
for providing funds to the States for the provision and maintenance of
public housing, dropped from $1643.5 million in 1995-96 to $1229.6
million in 2002-03 (ACOSS 2002). The decline in funding for public
housing is directly linked to the shift in the government's housing
policy for low-income households. From the late 1980s government policy
has increasingly presented the private rental market rather than public
housing as the preferred route for low-income households. Commonwealth
Rent Assistance (CRA) was meant to make this possible for low-income
Australians. In 1984-85, whilst only $234 million was budgeted for CRA,
over a billion dollars was allocated to the CSHA whereas in 2006-07,
$2.2 billion was set aside for CRA and only $970.6 million for CSHA
funding (Australia Government Productivity Commission 1993; Wulff 2000;
Biggs et al. 2008).

The cuts in funding for public housing have occurred in the context
of a housing affordability crisis (Randolph & Holloway 2002).
Australia has one of the most unaffordable housing markets in the world
and although income doubled between 1985 and 2004, housing prices
increased by 400 per cent. A recent international study found that of
the 28 areas surveyed in Australia, 25, this included all the capital
cities, were rated 'severely unaffordable' (Cox &
Pavletich 2008). Homeowners in 2005-06 needed 7.5 their annual disposal
income (after tax), while a decade earlier less than five times was
adequate. The affordability crisis is reflected in the substantial drop
in the proportion of households that own their home outright, down from
around 43 per cent in 1996 to 34.3 per cent in 2006 (Tanton, Nepal &
Harding, 2008). The data suggest that in coming decades a smaller
proportion of age pensioners will be homeowners and if present policy
trends persist, these older non-homeowners will be dependent on the
private rental market for their accommodation.

The article has three objectives. It first examines income and
housing costs for older Australians (65 plus) and in the process
illustrates the enormous importance of housing tenure in determining
whether an older person household has adequate financial resources.
Secondly, it explores how the present housing and pension policies
lessen but do not dispel the basis for enormous hardship for those
sections of the older population who have never managed to access or
have lost access to homeownership or social housing. In this section
in-depth interview material is used to illustrate arguments made. The
interviews were conducted between 2005 and October 2008. Interviewees
were found through advertisements placed on relevant notice-boards and
in seniors' publications. A total of 21 older private renters and
sixteen older public housing tenants were interviewed. The third
objective is to briefly assess the government's most recent policy
initiatives in the area of housing affordability and its implications
for older Australians. It is illustrated that these policy changes will
have a minimal impact on the situation of older households who at
present do not own their home and have not managed to access social
housing and are in housing stress. A household is defined as being in
housing stress when its income is in the lowest two quintiles and when
they require thirty per cent or more of gross household income to meet
their housing costs (Yates & Gabriel 2006).

Income, housing tenure and housing costs for older Australians

At present the primary source of income for the majority of older
Australians is the government age pension. In June 2006, about 1.9
million or 66 per cent of Australians over the qualifying age were
dependent on it for all or part of their income; 61.8 per cent received
the full pension and 38.2 per cent a part-pension (AIHW 2007: 47-8).
Older Australians receiving the part-pension would have other sources of
income and / or assets above the cut-off. In 2004-05, only 12 per cent
of retirees aged 45 and over received income from superannuation or
annuities (AIHW 2007: 48). Participation in the paid labour force for
people aged 65 and over is minimal. In 2003, only 5.4 per cent of women
and 11.9 per cent of men aged 65 and over were still in the paid labour
force and most were working part-time (AIHW 2007: 25). The end of labour
force participation invariably leads to a substantial drop in income.
Thus, in 2005-2006, for households in the 55-64 year old cohort, the
median gross household income was $989 a week, for 65-74 year-olds it
was $472 a week and for 75 years plus it was $421 (AIHW 2007: 43).

The full age pension in September 2008 was $271.40 a week for
people living by themselves and $463 a week for couples. A pensioner
living by themselves and renting in the private rental market was also
entitled to a maximum of $55.10 a week in Commonwealth Rent Assistance
(CRA) and couples were entitled to a maximum of $51.90 a fortnight.
Also, there are various additional benefits. Table 1 shows the maximum
amounts a single pensioner or couple were entitled to in September 2008.

If we use the Melbourne Institute's poverty line then in June
2008 for a single person household, where the person was not working, a
person was in poverty if they were earning less than $308.35 a week
including housing, and $184 other than housing. For couple households
(not working), the respective figures were $436.78 and $300.07
(Melbourne Institute 2008). Thus, if after paying for their
accommodation, a single older person had $184 or more left for the week
and a couple had $300, they were above the poverty line. The figures
indicate that the cost of accommodation may be the vital factor
determining if an older person did, or did not live in poverty. Another
key factor would be whether the older person was living alone or with a
partner. For example, an older person dependent on the age pension for
their income, whose rent was $200 a week would have about $150 ($350.63
minus $200) left after paying the rent. This is well below the $184
poverty line after housing. In contrast, a couple dependent on the age
pension and paying a weekly rent of $200 would have about $350 ($551.08
minus $200) left, which is above the poverty line as defined by the
Melbourne Institute. The increase in the age pension to $336 a week for
single pensioners and $506.50 for couples from 1 January 2010 should
take some pressure off older private renters.

The issue of when a person or household is in poverty is, of
course, complex and highly contested (Saunders 2005). The Westpac ASFA
Retirement Standard concluded that in the September quarter in 2008, in
order to have a modest lifestyle a single pensioner needed an income of
$19,617 a year or $377 a week and a couple required $27,454 annually or
$528 a week (Westpac 2008). A modest income would allow a household to
purchase necessities but little else. The Westpac figures were
calculated on the basis that the household did not have a mortgage and
was not renting in the private rental market. If we accept the Westpac
analysis, then an older household dependent on the age pension and with
moderate housing costs (an older private renter in Sydney would be very
fortunate to find accommodation for less than $150 a week), would
certainly not have the financial means to pursue a modest lifestyle and
would probably be struggling to purchase the most basic items.

There are massive discrepancies among older Australians in regards
to the costs of their accommodation. In 2003-04, older households who
owned their homes outright spent on average only four per cent of their
income on housing while households with a mortgage spent 14 per cent and
those in public housing approximately 23 per cent (AIHW 2007: 15). Table
2 shows that the situation of older private renters is very different
and many have to devote a considerable part of their income to paying
for accommodation. The data suggest that a large proportion of older
private renters living by themselves and dependent on the single person
age pension and CRA for their income were in a desperate situation.

About 77,000 older private renters or half of the total were in
housing stress, they had to use more than 30 per cent of their income
for rent, and about 35,000, close to one in four, had to use more than
half their income for rent.

Not surprisingly, private renters whose income was less than $350 a
month (this income grouping accounted for 34.7 per cent of all older
private renters) were in the most vulnerable situation. Thus, four in
five were using more than 30 per cent of their income for rent; 53 per
cent were using more than half of their income; 29.4 per cent were using
more than sixty per cent and 22.8 per cent more than seventy per cent.
It is probable that all of the households with an income of less than
$350 a week were lone person households dependent solely on the age
pension and CRA for their income.

Many households in the next income bracket, $350-$499 a week (17.7
per cent of all older renters), were also in an exceptionally difficult
position; 62.8 per cent were having to use more than thirty per cent of
their income for rent and 13.4 per cent more than fifty per cent.

It is likely that couple households dependent on the age pension
for their income, make up most of the older private renter households in
the $500-$649 a week category. The proportion of households in this
income category in housing stress, although substantial at 41 per cent,
was half that of age pensioners living by themselves (those households
with an income of less than $350 a week). Less than one in ten
households in the $500-$650 income bracket were using more than half of
their income for rent, compared to over half of households earning less
then $350.

The preceding discussion and Table 2 illustrate how important
housing tenure and household size / marital status are in determining
income after paying for accommodation. Older homeowners and public
housing tenants dependent on the age pension, after paying accommodation
costs invariably would have far more income than their counterparts in
the private rental market. Homeowners are also able to draw equity on
their home if need be and this can be extremely beneficial in the event
of a major expense (COTA 2007). Older couples in private rental,
although their situation is often precarious, are usually in a far
better financial position than older private renters living by
themselves.

Policy around rental housing--implications for older renters

In both the private and public rental sector there is government
support and tenure protection. The levels of support and protection,
however, vary dramatically and older public housing tenants are in a
very different situation to their counterparts in private rental. Even
with CRA, the rents of older private renters are in almost all instances
far higher than their public housing counterparts as is the proportion
of their income they have to use for accommodation. This is especially
so in metropolitan areas with tight rental markets. Also, the security
of tenure of older public housing tenants is much greater. These issues
are elaborated on below.

Commonwealth Rent Assistance and older private renters

CRA is a federal government program and is a non-taxable
income-supplement paid directly to private renters who receive income
support from government.

There is no doubt that CRA does make an enormous difference to the
financial situation of households and that without it a far greater
proportion of older Australians renting in the private rental market
would be in severe housing stress and be forced to vacate. In March
2007, the Minister for Community Services claimed that CRA helped push
the proportion of private renters who would need to spend more than 30
per cent of their income on rent from 65 per cent (if CRA was not
provided) to 35 per cent (Australian Government 2007). There are,
however, two key inter-related problems with CRA. Firstly, the CRA older
renters receive is simply not enough in strong rental markets. This is
especially so for older renters who live by themselves and are dependent
solely on the single age pension and CRA for their income. As
demonstrated in Table 2, even after receiving the maximum benefit, many
older private renters are still having to use a very substantial part of
their income for rent. Secondly, there is no geographical variation in
the way CRA is calculated. A household in a strong rental market such as
Sydney's is entitled to the same CRA as a household residing in a
regional area with a weak rental market. The maximum CRA payment ($55.10
a week) represents a small proportion of the rent in an adequate
apartment in Sydney. In June 2008, the median rent for a one-bedroomed
apartment in the Sydney statistical district was $350--in the inner-ring
it was $380; in the middle ring it was $330 and in the outer ring it was
$220 (New South Wales Government 2008). In the year to June 2008 rents
in Sydney rose on average by 13.8 per cent (NSW Government 2008). In
September 2008, a person living by themselves in Sydney's outer
ring, paying the median rent and dependent solely on the age pension and
CRA for their income would have had to use 62.7 per cent of their income
to pay for accommodation, in the middle ring, 94.1 per cent, and in the
inner ring, they would be paying $30 more in rent than their income.

The implications of the limitations of the CRA policy for older
non-homeowners can be dramatic. The following sketches of two older
private renters (the names used are pseudonyms) living by themselves,
the interviews were conducted in October 2008, are illustrative: Jim
(70) had been living in the inner-west in Sydney for forty years with
his partner in a home owned by his partner's daughter. After his
partner passed away (he had been his partner's full-time carer for
the last ten years of her life) he was instructed to vacate the house by
the daughter of his deceased partner as 'she wanted to charge a
market rent'. Notwithstanding an extensive search, he found it
impossible to find affordable accommodation in the private rental market
in Sydney and, despite numerous pleas, the Department of Housing was not
able to help him. Eventually the stress of the situation triggered a
heart attack. Ultimately, he concluded that in order to find affordable
accommodation he would have to leave Sydney. The only public housing
available to him was in a village of about 500 people in a remote part
of New South Wales where the local Council had reserved three units for
age pensioners at a rent of $110 a week. He is struggling to come to
terms with the probability that he will have to live out his remaining
years in this remote village which has few facilities and where he knows
no one. Once a week, on a Monday, he is able to catch a bus to the
nearest regional centre, fifty miles away.

Jim was prepared to move albeit through force of circumstances and
very reluctantly, however, many older renters are not prepared to move
away from friends and family. Ros, an older private renter in
Sydney's eastern suburbs who was paying $310 a week for her
two-bedroomed apartment (her daughter stocked up her fridge as after
paying her rent she had no money left to purchase food), was adamant
that she was not prepared to move and there was nothing cheaper in the
area. She was determined to be close to her daughter and grandchildren.
Her grandchildren often came to her apartment and she needed two
bedrooms in case a grandchild slept over. She was extremely anxious
about her financial situation, was not sleeping and had suicidal
thoughts. She was adamant that people in her situation should be able to
purchase the euthanasia drug, Nembutal, and 'move on'.

Minimal security of tenure for older private renters

The protection that government provides for older private renters
is minimal and they are not viewed as a group that requires special
treatment. Landlords and managing agents have the power to dictate the
length of the lease and the rent to be paid. In the metropolitan areas
it is very unusual to have a lease beyond a year and often the lease
will be for only six months. The landlord/ agent can decide to renew the
lease if they so desire but there is no obligation. Once the lease is
up, the landlord/agent has the power to give the tenant two months
notice. The absence of rent control means that once the lease ends, the
landlord can increase the rent by as much as the market will bear. The
tenant can appeal to the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal if they
feel the increase is excessive, however, in order for the appeal to
succeed, the tenant has to prove that the landlord is not being
reasonable. The appeals are rarely successful as invariably tenants are
not able to show that the landlord is being unreasonable (personal
communication, NSW Tenancy Association).

At present, it is evident that power is concentrated in the hands
of the landlord and tenants have little room for maneuver. The lack of
rent control and tenure security evokes enormous anxiety for many older
private renters (Jones et al. 2007). Once the lease ends there is the
ever-present possibility of being forced to move due to an untenable
rent increase or the landlord wanting to sell the apartment. Looking for
alternative accommodation is often difficult. Besides their lack of
financial resources, older renters are more likely to be frail so
finding new accommodation and moving becomes a very daunting physical
and emotional task. Also, most older private renters do not have their
own vehicle and this makes it difficult to inspect places available for
rent. In a tight rental market older renters would usually be beaten to
an adequate affordable property by a younger person with more resources
as renters 'race' to find affordable dwellings. In Sydney the
intensity of the search for affordable rental accommodation has led to
'rent rage' between potential tenants (REINSW 2008).

Older public housing tenants

The differences in the rental and tenure situations of older public
and private renters are stark. Older public housing tenants know their
tenure is secure and that their rent is predictable. In New South Wales
the rents of older public housing tenants are set at maximum of 25 per
cent of their income. Thus, in September 2008, older public housing
tenants were paying about $68 a week for their accommodation. This left
them with about $227 a week for other expenses. Interviews with older
public housing tenants suggest that although they have to budget
carefully and live frugally, many felt that they had an adequate income.
This was especially so if they did not smoke. Public housing tenants who
were interviewed said that they were able to purchase the items that
they needed and were able to save.

Security of tenure for life is virtually guaranteed for older
public housing tenants. As long as they are responsible tenants the
possibility of losing their tenancy is remote. In New South Wales, prior
to the rules changing in October 2006, older tenants were given leases
for life. Post October 2006, leases for older public housing tenants are
for ten years and renewable thereafter. The predictability of the rent
and security of tenure are enormously comforting. Tenants are able to
plan for the future and are not beset with constant concerns about the
possibility of losing their accommodation. Jack, who at the time of
being interviewed in December 2005 had been a public housing tenant for
about twenty years, captures this sentiment:

Another important advantage of being a public housing tenant is
that maintenance is done by the Department of Housing and thus there is
no fear that reporting of maintenance problems will provoke retaliation
or be ignored.

Contemporary housing policy initiatives and older people

The coming into power of the Australian Labor Party has led to much
activity in housing policy and there is a clear commitment to improving
the situation of homeless and marginally housed Australians. An
important question is the extent to which the policy initiatives which
have been put in place will alleviate the situation of older, marginally
housed Australians. Unfortunately, almost all of the policy initiatives
are orientated towards 'working households' and not many older
households dependent on the age pension for their income are likely to
benefit from the policy shifts. There has been no mention of rent
control in the private rental market and there has been no shift in the
CRA policy in regards to taking account of the maximum amounts paid or
the locational differences in the rental market. Although the policy
proposals linked to the housing affordability strategy make no mention
of older people, the policies dedicated towards fighting homelessness,
do have a section on the specificity of older homelessness and the need
to create special facilities. The major policy initiatives are briefly
outlined as are their implications for older people who are not
homeowners.

'First Home Saver Accounts'

The 'First Home Saver Accounts' became available in
October 2008 and are orientated towards young couples saving for their
first home. The policy provides for the creation of low tax savings
accounts for young people who open special accounts geared towards
purchasing their first homes (Australian Government 2008a). This policy
will certainly help some households achieve homeownership who otherwise
may not have. It is evident that older Australians are not expected to
participate in this policy initiative.

'The Housing Affordability Fund'

The 'The Housing Affordability Fund' is directed towards
increasing the supply of private housing by partially funding the
building of infrastructure in newly released areas and giving
'local government incentives to lower development charges'. It
is hoped that these initiatives will lower the cost of new homes in
these areas. This policy is geared towards households who are in the
labour-force. For older people dependent on the age pension this policy
initiative is not relevant. They do not have the resources to purchase a
home.

The National Rental Affordability Scheme

The 'National Rental Affordability Scheme' has been
presented as the key part of the Rudd government's endeavour to
increase the supply of affordable rental housing. The scheme involves
the federal government providing $622.6 million over four years in order
to provide 50,000 'affordable' rental properties across
Australia by 2012 and 'if market demand remains strong the
Government will deliver a further 50,000 from 2012 onwards'
(Australian Government 2008a). The properties are to be rented out at 20
per cent below market value.

Developers will be given an incentive worth $8000 per property per
year for ten years. The scheme is clearly orientated towards
'working families' and it is unlikely that this scheme will
benefit older Australians who at present are renters. The Council of the
Ageing (COTA), in its assessment of the policy, concluded, 'While
the goal is admirable, there is a serious risk that, even at that
reduced rental threshold, many Australians--and notably older
Australians, particularly age pensioners--will still not be able to
afford the rent' (COTA 2008).

Land Release

Another component of the affordable housing policy is land
release--the freeing up of Commonwealth owned land 'for housing
development or community infrastructure'. Government owned land
would be sensible spaces on which to build public housing, there is,
however, no indication how much of this land will be used to build
affordable housing.

Policy initiative for fighting homelessness

The white paper, The Road Home, released at the end of 2008,
commits $1.2 billion dollars to fight homessness (Australian Government
2008b). Special mention is made of the needs of the older homeless and
specialist aged-care facilities for older people who have had a history
of homelessness will be established. This is clearly a good start but
will have little impact on the lives of older marginally housed
households, most notably older private renters. Very few will be able to
access this housing as it is orientated towards accommodating
individuals/households that have had a history of homelessness.

About $800 million dollars will be spent on providing services to
prevent homelessness. In cases where an older person household is in
danger of losing access to their accommodation, the new policy
initiatives expand the possibilities for these households. There will be
more emergency housing and a greater number of service providers to turn
to for assistance and this could certainly benefit older households who
have exhausted all possibilities. It is possible that these service
providers will be able to use their resources to ultimately settle these
households in affordable housing.

Increased commitment to public housing

In the 2009-10 budget the government set aside $6.8billion for the
construction of 20,000 new social housing dwellings and the repair of
another 45,000; 'people who have been homeless and people on low
incomes struggling in the private rental market will be a priority'
(Australian Government 2009). This is an important initiative and
indicates a shift in government thinking--social housing is back in
favour. There is, however, no mention of older Australians being
prioritised and the 20,000 social housing dwellings planned represent
about 11 per cent of the 178,000 households that were on the waiting
list for public housing in June 2008 (AIHW 2009). Thus, it is unclear
the degree to which this initiative will facilitate the ability of older
private renters to move into social housing.

Conclusion

The data indicate that for those older Australians who have not
managed to access homeownership or public / community housing, or
alternatively have not managed to retain their home due to events such
as divorce, business failure or ill-health, the policy of focusing
mainly on facilitating home-ownership, has had serious implications.
Older Australians who find themselves in the private rental market
because there is no other option, are battling to sustain themselves and
retain their tenancy. Their rent often consumes a large part of their
income and their security of tenure, once their lease ends, is
negligible. If they are renting in a metropolitan area and living by
themselves, it is very likely that they will find themselves in serious
housing and financial stress. In addition to having to devote a large
part of their income to paying the rent, older private renters often are
forced to accept accommodation which is not appropriate and which they
are loathe to ask the agent / landlord to modify because they are
fearful it may sour the relationship (Izuhara & Heywood 2003; Kendig
& Bridge 2007).

Research has indicated that for older people the ability to age in
place is often central for active and healthy ageing (Olsberg et al.
2005; Steinfeld & Shea 1995). For older private renters ageing in
place is usually not possible (Judd et al. 2004).

Public housing due to the low rents, the predictability of the cost
of accommodation, and the considerable security of tenure, gives people
dependent on the age pension the capability 'to lead the kind of
lives they value ...' and to age in place (Sen 1999: 18). The
decline in the absolute number of public housing dwellings has meant
that older people, especially those who are under eighty, independent
and healthy, are finding it increasingly difficult to access acceptable
public housing (Judd et al 2004). Income and age are no longer key
criteria for accessing public housing; in New South Wales an individual
now has to have low income, complex needs and be 'in need of
support services to help them live independently' (New South Wales
Government 2008).

Although, at present, older private renters constitute a small
proportion of all older person households, as mentioned, this housing
tenure is bound to grow substantially if the current policy trends
continue. Most of these households will be sole person households. Jones
et al (2007) estimate that the number of sole person households in
rental housing will increase from 110,800 (2001 figure) to 243,600 in
2026 and that two thirds of these households will be constituted by
women living by themselves. This is significant as private renters who
live by themselves are in a far more vulnerable position than couples.

The data indicate that it is imperative that housing policy is
recast so that older non-homeowners either have enough income to afford
to live in private rental accommodation or that housing availability in
the public or community housing sector is expanded so that an older
non-homeowner is able to access this housing tenure if they so desire.
The recent policy initiatives that have been put in place are certainly
a step forward, but, as has been shown, will have little impact on the
current situation of older private renters.

We need to ask ourselves what kind of cities we want. Do we want
cities where a substantial section of the older population are
marginalised and probably have reduced life expectancy due to their
failure or inability to purchase private property in their life-time or
access social housing, or do we want just cities where all citizens are
protected and can live a decent life throughout their lifespan? If the
answer is the latter, then the federal and state governments have to
start putting the emphasis on developing a housing policy which gives
all citizens, young and old, rich and poor, the ability to access
decent, affordable housing.

Australian Government (2008a) Making Housing Affordable Again,
Canberra, Australian Government.

Australian Government (2008b) The Road Home--Homelessness White
Paper, Canberra, Australian Government.

Australian Government (2009) Nation building infrastructure for
productivity and prosperity in Commonwealth Budget, Canberra, Australian
Government. http://www.aph.gov.au/budget/2009-10/content/glossy/
infrastructure/html/infrastructure_overview_37.htm Australian Institute
of Health and Welfare (2005) 2005 Public Housing, National Social
Housing Survey-Key Results. Cat no. Aus 78, Canberra, AIHW.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2007) Older Australians
at a Glance: 4th edition. Cat. No. AGE 52, Canberra, AIHW.

Westpac (2008) A Budget for a Comfortable Retirement, September
Quarter 2008, http://www.superannuation.asn.au/RS/default.aspx

Wulff, M. (2000). The National Survey of Rent Assistance
Recipients: A Report on Key Findings, Canberra, Commonwealth Department
of Family and Community Services.

Yates, J. and Gabriel, M. (2006) Housing Affordability in
Australia; National Research Venture 3" Housing Affordability for
Lower Income Australians, Research Paper 3, Melbourne, Australian
Housing and Urban Research Institute.

There is a certain feeling of security when you've got the
Department of Housing [as a landlord] ... [Private] landlords can
always put up their rent and I found that the government is the
best landlord that I've ever had. They're very responsive. They
leave you alone and as long as you pay the rent, they don't
interfere ... I do feel that there is a terrific lot of security
here. It makes for a far more peaceful life, especially when you
get older. When people get older, as you know, they sort of become
easily stressed and the accommodation is probably at the top of the
list where you live and so on ... When you know your accommodation
is right, this is especially when you're older, you can pursue
other interests. You're more relaxed and I do feel, I really feel,
you're in for a longer life you know. [It's a] ... nerve-wrecking
thing, especially if ... you don't own your own home and especially
if you're in the rental market when you get older. It's a very
dodgy situation.

Table 1: Total weekly income of age pensioners September 2008
Single person Couple
household household--income
per couple
Pension (maximum) $271.40 $463
Pension supplement $9.65 $18.80
Utilities allowance $9.88 $9.88
Telephone allowance $1.70 $1.70
Pharmaceutical allowance $2.90 $5.80
Total weekly income $295.53 $499.18
Total annual income $15,367 $25,957
CRA (maximum amount) $55.10 $51.90
Total weekly income with CRA $350.63 $551.08
Total annual income with CRA $18,233 $28,656
Table 2: Proportion of older private renters in Australia
in mid-2006 who were paying more than 30%, 50%, 60% or 70%
of the household income on rent (N = 154,543)
Income Proportion Proportion
paying more paying more
than 30% than 50 %
+Less than $350 pw (N = 53634) *80.1 53.0
Between $350 and $499 pw (N = 27377) 62.8 13.4
Between $500 and $649 pw (N = 27077) 41.3 8.9
Between $650 and $799 pw (N = 7903) 30.1 5.4
Between $800 and $999 pw (N = 8628) 18.4 2.5
$1000 and above (N = 29,924) 6.8 1.1
Total 50.1 22.9
Income Proportion Proportion
paying more paying more
than 60 % than 70 %
+Less than $350 pw (N = 53634) 29.4 22.8
Between $350 and $499 pw (N = 27377) 5.2 5.2
Between $500 and $649 pw (N = 27077) 3.4 1.5
Between $650 and $799 pw (N = 7903) 1.9 1.2
Between $800 and $999 pw (N = 8628) 1.2 1.2
$1000 and above (N = 29,924) 0.7 0.7
Total 12.2 9.4
+ Results derived from several collapsed income ranges.
As such the product of N and proportion reported in each cell
may vary from N for the entire income range.
Source: ABS (2008). Unpublished 2006 census data.
Note: Census data are provided for 15 income and 10 rent
ranges. The calculations here assume that income and rent
are located at the midpoints of these ranges. Participants
who reported a zero or negative income, did not respond or
reported a partial income were not included.